ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2025
E_N_T_R_O_P_Y: Monocentric analysis of rectal cancer radio-chemotherapy treatment in patients of young age.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose//objectives: A disproportionate incidence's increase of rectal cancer in patients younger than 50 years of age. The ESMO and NCCN recommendations are not age-specific and the literature is poor and conflicting. We decided to examine patients with rectal cancer treated in our centre in the last 15 years with curative neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy comparing outcomes in the two groups under and over 55 years old. Materials/methods: 788 rectal cancer patients were enrolled in this monocentric retrospective observational study (523 =>55 years and 265 < 55). All patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation treatment. R statistical software v.4.1.3 was used for the entire analysis. The outcomes were death, local recurrence, and new distant metastases. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the Log-rank was used to compare the two groups. Results: All patients were classified in different risk groups, according to the ESMO 2017 rectal cancer clinical practice guidelines. 88 % of patients under 55 years old at the diagnosis belonged to the bad or advanced risk groups with an equal division. In patients over 55 years old, there was a clear dominance of the advanced risk class (62 % of the total). In multivariate analysis, OS and DFS decrease with increasing age and ESMO risk group. The other variables in multivariate were not significant. For Both OS, DFS and MFS, the curves separated significantly at 55 years of age, with a prevalence of metastasis development in the older group. Conclusion: Elderly patients have a prevalence of advanced disease. Younger patients seem having a better OS at 3 and 5 years. ESMO risk group and age were the only variables affecting OS and DFS. Young patients have better MFS and DFS at 2 and 5 years than patients older than 55 years. The addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted not significant in both groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.